Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Foster.

Councillor Allen declared an interest in item 6c and confirmed that he was pre-determined on the application and would take part in the debate only in his capacity as Ward Member.

Councillor Barnes declared an interest in item 6c that he is a trustee of the animal shelter near the Folly site and confirmed that he would step down as Chair and leave the meeting before this item was debated.

The following Councillors attended site 6c during Planning View:

-       Councillor Baker

-       Councillor Bamford

-       Councillor Clark

-       Councillor Dr. Steinhardt

-       Councillor Wheeler

Councillors Oliver and Williams declared that they had independently visited site 6c.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 27 March 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 March were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were none.

Planning Application Documents

The Tree Officer introduced the report as published.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit and grant:

For: 10

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted unanimously for the officer recommendation for no objections.

Planning Application Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit and grant:

For: 10

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted unanimously to permit.

Planning Application Documents

Councillor Barnes stepped down as Chair and left the meeting. Councillor Baker took over as Chair of the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were five public speakers on the item: an objector, the applicant’s representative, two ward members and the county councillor.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

·         He highlighted fundamental flaws in the officer’s recommendation relating to the protection of playing fields, misuse of planning policy, and the long-term consequences for Cheltenham’s planning integrity.

·         Paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that playing fields must not be built on unless they are surplus to requirements, are replaced with equivalent or better provision, or substituted by a facility of greater benefit. These requirements have not been met and Sports England, as a statutory consultee, have objected to the application.

·         The land was strategically abandoned. This was a marked, multi-pitch site for football and mini soccer. In recent years it was used for youth football, rugby league, and other sports—while under exactly the same ownership and management as now. A deliberate choice to restrict access was made not due to a lack of demand but as a managed decline. Under national policy, both public and private fields are protected from exactly this kind of engineered loss.

·         Paragraph 11d(i) of the NPPF states that “Permission should be refused where the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusal.” Sports England says that the application fails the test for paragraph 104 of the NPPF which is a protective policy. This means that the tilted balance does not apply, and cannot lawfully override this protection.

·         The proposed community park cannot substitute for bookable, formal playing pitches. That is a completely different category of provision in quantity, quality, and functionality. The Park, the location put forward as mitigation, is already in regular use by Leckhampton Rovers and others as a playing pitch and training ground. It is not new and is not spare capacity. Rebadging existing, heavily used green space as mitigation for the loss of a dedicated playing field, especially in one of the least affluent parts of town, is misleading and inequitable.

·         Cheltenham Borough Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy, adopted by Cabinet in July 2024 and produced by professional sports consultants states: “The Folley… previously provided three adult pitches and a mini soccer pitch… Proposals submitted to develop housing on the site. If these proceed, ensure any loss of pitch provision is mitigated, and that mitigation is signed off by all relevant NGBs and Sport England,” and “Disused sites and unmarked pitches shouldn’t be deemed surplus to requirements… unless one of Sport England’s policy exceptions can be met.” It further notes that the site remains perfectly usable for multiple community sports. No mitigation has been agreed. A year ago the University was encouraged to consider mitigation, perhaps by contributing to new provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The appeal updates were noted.

There were none.